Rather than rely on peer-reviewed science to work out whether the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is driving long term climate Nova reposts the workings of “some guy on the internet” who can match observed temperatures using a simple formula.

To demonstrate her incompetence, she labels this work as “heavy stuff, but I know some people will enjoy the challenge of testing Frank’s ideas”.

Nova fails to notice the glaring mistake in Franks first graph. I’m not surprised.

## What’s Missing?

Franks idea is that the ocean is driving the long term change in climate, not just giving short term fluctuations.

In Franks rush to discard the known basic forcing of CO2, something even Nova has said exists, Frank also forgets to think about Solar output and Aerosols. These two factors don’t even rank a mention in Franks hypothesis even though every single climate scientist will tell you that they play a very important role.

## Simple Algebra – Simple Mistake

If you enjoy mathematics, and I do, then you’ve probably spotted the error in Franks equation. The logic from the very beginning seems flawed, Frank takes oscillating data (goes up and down in a cycle with no long term trend) and get’s it to match a long term rising trend … how does he do such “magic”?

Well the very simple answer lies within his simple equation …

Temp = Temp Last Month + 0.0083 (“Nina 3.4 HADISST” + 0.053)

This equation can be simplified as follows by expanding the brackets …

Temp = Temp Last Month + 0.0083 * “Nina 3.4 HADISST” + 0.0083 * 0.053

0.0083 (“Nina 3.4 HADISST” + 0.053) has become 0.0083 * “Nina 3.4 HADISST” + 0.0083 * 0.053 which mathematically is the same. The next step is to simply this equation even further by calculating **0.0083 * 0.053** and replacing it with the answer **0.0004399**. The equation now becomes …

Temp = Temp Last Month + 0.0083 * “Nina 3.4 HADISST” +

0.0004399

So each month Frank adds a fraction of the Nina 3.4, something that oscillates between positive and negative values and, whilst creating short term variation, it adds no real long term trend to the graph. So where does the trend come from?

**The answer :** The upward trend is caused by adding the **0.0004399** amount every single month. This amounts to 0.005 per year or **0.528 per century**.

Frank gives no explanation for why he adds a small amount to each month. I suspect he didn’t even realise his “simple” equation had such a flaw and that he chose the “fudge factor” number because it better matched the data.

Basic mistakes like this show why anyone serious about understanding climate science should read the peer reviewed science rather than bother with “some guy on the internet”.

Frank’s simple equation bamboozles Joanne Nova, but the mistakes he made means his theory thankfully won’t make it into a peer-reviewed journal.

January 15, 2012 at 9:29 pm |

haha! Well done and I spotted one more problem with his function although it’s not as obvious as the one you have noted. The additing of a small amount of SST to each month is incorrect since the SST is a temperature, not a forcing. Given that he can’t even recognise that he added a constant into his own equation I very much doubt he’ll understand why an anomoly shouldn’t be continually added to each month.

March 1, 2012 at 2:50 am |

Haha, I always love it when deniers make such appallingly basic errors as this. Of course if he had a shred of integrity he would retreat in shame and humiliation and never again think himself somehow intelligent enough to have actual insight. I rather suspect he won’t do that though.